The U.S. State Department released aggregate New START numbers from the 1 March 2015 data exchange. The release shows that at that date Russia reported having 515 deployed launchers and 1582 operationally deployed warheads. It also reported having 890 total launchers.

Compared to the September 1, 2014 data, the number of launchers decreased - from 528 to 515. The number of warheads decreased more dramatically - from 1643 to 1582. The total number of launchers went from 911 to 890.

The corresponding U.S. numbers are 785 deployed launchers, 1597 warheads, and 898 total launchers.

Note: a strategic bomber counts as a deployed launcher and one warhead.

The U.S. State Department released aggregate New START numbers from the 1 March 2015 data exchange. The release shows that at that date Russia reported having 515 deployed launchers and 1582 operationally deployed warheads. It also reported having 890 total launchers.

Compared to the September 1, 2014 data, the number of launchers decreased - from 528 to 515. The number of warheads decreased more dramatically - from 1643 to 1582. The total number of launchers went from 911 to 890.

The corresponding U.S. numbers are 785 deployed launchers, 1597 warheads, and 898 total launchers.

Note: a strategic bomber counts as a deployed launcher and one warhead.

How is this possible and as well, how did they drop that many? Cause as far as I can tell, Russia is the one building new missiles not USA. As well, how is it that Russia has so few launchers?

The U.S. State Department released aggregate New START numbers from the 1 March 2015 data exchange. The release shows that at that date Russia reported having 515 deployed launchers and 1582 operationally deployed warheads. It also reported having 890 total launchers.

Compared to the September 1, 2014 data, the number of launchers decreased - from 528 to 515. The number of warheads decreased more dramatically - from 1643 to 1582. The total number of launchers went from 911 to 890.

The corresponding U.S. numbers are 785 deployed launchers, 1597 warheads, and 898 total launchers.

Note: a strategic bomber counts as a deployed launcher and one warhead.

How is this possible and as well, how did they drop that many? Cause as far as I can tell, Russia is the one building new missiles not USA. As well, how is it that Russia has so few launchers?

Yars has 4 warheads compared to the 1 carried by the Topol. The important figure is the total warheads, which is what the START treaty is based on. The Bulava carries 6 warheads as opposed to the 3 that the SS-N-18 carries.

The U.S. State Department released aggregate New START numbers from the 1 March 2015 data exchange. The release shows that at that date Russia reported having 515 deployed launchers and 1582 operationally deployed warheads. It also reported having 890 total launchers.

Compared to the September 1, 2014 data, the number of launchers decreased - from 528 to 515. The number of warheads decreased more dramatically - from 1643 to 1582. The total number of launchers went from 911 to 890.

The corresponding U.S. numbers are 785 deployed launchers, 1597 warheads, and 898 total launchers.

Note: a strategic bomber counts as a deployed launcher and one warhead.

How is this possible and as well, how did they drop that many? Cause as far as I can tell, Russia is the one building new missiles not USA. As well, how is it that Russia has so few launchers?

Yars has 4 warheads compared to the 1 carried by the Topol. The important figure is the total warheads, which is what the START treaty is based on. The Bulava carries 6 warheads as opposed to the 3 that the SS-N-18 carries.

The U.S. State Department released aggregate New START numbers from the 1 September 2015 data exchange. Russia declared 1648 deployed warheads, 526 deployed launchers, and 877 total launchers. In March 2015 the numbers were 1582, 515, and 890 respectively.

The increase of 66 deployed warheads and nine launchers is most likely due to the deployment of Bulava missiles on the Alexander Nevskiy submarine that was completed in April 2015. Also, some older missiles were probably withdrawn from service.

The U.S. numbers in September 2015 were 1538 warheads, 762 deployed and 898 total launchers (1597, 785, and 898 in March 2015).

The U.S. State Department released aggregate New START numbers from the 1 March 2015 data exchange. The release shows that at that date Russia reported having 515 deployed launchers and 1582 operationally deployed warheads. It also reported having 890 total launchers.

Compared to the September 1, 2014 data, the number of launchers decreased - from 528 to 515. The number of warheads decreased more dramatically - from 1643 to 1582. The total number of launchers went from 911 to 890.

The corresponding U.S. numbers are 785 deployed launchers, 1597 warheads, and 898 total launchers.

Note: a strategic bomber counts as a deployed launcher and one warhead.

How is this possible and as well, how did they drop that many? Cause as far as I can tell, Russia is the one building new missiles not USA. As well, how is it that Russia has so few launchers?

Yars has 4 warheads compared to the 1 carried by the Topol. The important figure is the total warheads, which is what the START treaty is based on. The Bulava carries 6 warheads as opposed to the 3 that the SS-N-18 carries.

In that case, shouldn't the number of warheads decrease slower than that of the launchers if the new launchers can launch more warheads?

The U.S. State Department released aggregate New START numbers from the 1 March 2015 data exchange. The release shows that at that date Russia reported having 515 deployed launchers and 1582 operationally deployed warheads. It also reported having 890 total launchers.

Compared to the September 1, 2014 data, the number of launchers decreased - from 528 to 515. The number of warheads decreased more dramatically - from 1643 to 1582. The total number of launchers went from 911 to 890.

The corresponding U.S. numbers are 785 deployed launchers, 1597 warheads, and 898 total launchers.

Note: a strategic bomber counts as a deployed launcher and one warhead.

How is this possible and as well, how did they drop that many? Cause as far as I can tell, Russia is the one building new missiles not USA. As well, how is it that Russia has so few launchers?

Yars has 4 warheads compared to the 1 carried by the Topol. The important figure is the total warheads, which is what the START treaty is based on. The Bulava carries 6 warheads as opposed to the 3 that the SS-N-18 carries.

In that case, shouldn't the number of warheads decrease slower than that of the launchers if the new launchers can launch more warheads?

To clarify, the Topol SS25 has only one, but the SS19 (6) and SS18 (10) which are also being retired are your difference.

I've already shared the info in INF Treaty thread . SS-18 were decommissioned by 2009 and I guess SS-19 are still in service though. Do you people think Russia will agree on START implementation date of February, 2018? I guess unless US pulls out its interceptors from E.Europe otheriwse not ?

Last edited by max steel on Fri Nov 13, 2015 1:35 am; edited 1 time in total

max steel wrote:I've already shared the info in INF Treaty thread . SS-18 were decommissioned by 2009 and I guess SS-19 are still in service though. Do you people think Russia will agree on START implementation date of February, 2018? I guess unless US pulls out its interceptors from E.Europe otheriwse not ?

There are still SS18's in service, probably 40ish.

This site believes 46. I think their totals of SS19 are high. I believe that only the 30 acquired from Ukraine are still in service.

So it is clear that production of SS-27 single warhead ICBM has finished. SS-25s are being removed. We will have 24 new Yars ICBM in 2015

http://bmpd.livejournal.com/1125222.html

even though it looks like a lot..

I don't think is enough for a total destruction of a nation that is hostile to Russia and Russia needs to defeat completely in just 24 hours. without the need of invading and using ground forces.

Lets say for example that iSIS takes control of Turkey. with american help (not untinkable since already erdogan family deals with them and are allies.. ) and they plant a flag in the capital as the new ISIS country, and Americans give them the codes of the nuclear weapons and the hows to launch them to Russia and all the nukes distributed through all Turkey territories in random places. and this new ISIS nation declare war against Russia and start throwing missiles at Russia with nuclear warheads. Then RUssia nuclear arsenal will be unable to stop Turkey from launching nuclear attacks on Russia. It could destroy most cities , but it cannot stop terroristready to die ,in control of a near hundreds of nukes to attack Russia. And Russia nuclear inventory will not be enough to stop ISIS if takes control of Turkey.. as it did of Lybia.

To have a better idea of the level of the nuclear inventory you need to fully destroy a terrorist controlled nation of the size of Turkey if they get a hold of near a hundred of nuclear missiles and they don't care about being killed or million civilian casualties in their side and only want to destroy Russia. Then i suspect that to really blow up every inch of territory in Turkey ,that is covered by strong mountains and with nuclear weapons in underground bunkers. Then Russia will need an inventory of at least 10x times higher than the ones they have today. about15,000 nuclear warheads.

I think it was a bad idea for Russia to sign a nuclear treaty with Americans.. since it benefits more them than Russia. because Russia today nuclear inventory is not enough to defeat all NATO in a fight to the last man. that is. Is crazy to think such a fight can happen ,but havingthe capability to literary wipe every inch of territory of the top 5 NATO countries ,(even if never used) it will be a real deterrence more than anything.

People needs to remember that there are American military advisors that were in the believe that a nuclear war with Russia was worth of it as long 10% of its population survive and1% of the elites avoid any casualty by hidding in underground bunkers. Lets not forget that US military have 1 thousand military bases around the world. about 3,000 combat planes , 400 warships , So its nuclear arsenal will not be enough to completely destroy US military and stop any capability for retaliating with all they have. Russia already have detonated 2,000 nuclear weapons on its own territory and no one killed.. so yes nuclear weapons are Really powerful.But unless they target the right places they can be useless. and if you need to completely stopany major country (like turkey) taken by terrorist and supported by most of its people from launching a nuclear attack ,you cant do it unless you have a dozen of thousands of nuclear warheads for that nation alone.

it is my believe that for Russia really be a nuclear deterrent to the most hardcore lunatic American generals that consider worthy the sacrifice of 90% of US population if they win in the end in a nuclear war with Russia. that you will need an inventory of at least of 50,000 nuclear warheads. and each one with 1 megaton of power at least. and to fight most hostile Nato,at least like 70,000.

Using this link..

http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

just for the sake of comparison of nuclear power ,i calculated for example that Russia will need like 50 topol missiles to fully cover a country of the size of Israel which is small. 350x topol M to fully cover every inch of Syria and about half of that, 175 x topol missiles to totally defeat ISIS and Alqaeda in just one day ,just using nukes. and near 3,000 topol ,to fully cover all Turkey. (this however will not take deep underground anti nuclear bunkers)

But since most Russian missiles are small cruise missiles and tactical of just few kilotons, then that number will increase x 10 to compensate for the low nuclear warhead. so like 30,000 kh-55 (200kiloton) missiles or about 3,000 topol (1 megaton) missiles.

So the world will not end with a nuclear war contrary to what most people believe. there are no enough nuclear weapons for that.. not even close. and US and Russia capabilities are only good enough to take about 10% to 30% of the population of each side. all depends on how fast people seek refuge. when an attack begins.. Is a lot of people but not enough to totally destroy a nation capability to continue attacking the other side.

All said for Russia to defeat US , it will need way more nuclear missiles about 10x times more , than they have to counter their NATO alliance.

George1 wrote:For SS-19 i see no warheads carried in the table. The remaining missiles might are kept in silos without nuclear warheads

Not sure about the warhead bit but I believe the total SS-19 count should be 20. The 10 silo based Yars would have replaced the other 10 SS-19. Waiting for the next START exchange in March to confirm warhead count. This gives 6 silo based SS-27 regiments plus 2 mobile regiments and 1 silo based Yars regiment plus 7 mobile regiments for modern ICBM.

EDIT: a mobile regiment has 9 ICBM's while a silo regiment has 10. A SS-27 has 1 warhead per ICBM while a Yars ICBM has 4 warheads (MIRV) which can hit 4 separate targets within a 1,000 km radius (at least the last I heard)

The U.S. State Department released aggregate New START numbers from the 1 March 2016 data exchange. Russia declared 1735 deployed warheads, 521 deployed launchers, and 856 total launchers. In September 2015 the numbers were 1648, 526, and 877 respectively.

The increase of 87 deployed warheads is most likely due to the deployment of Bulava missiles on the Vladimir Monomakh submarine that was completed in April 2015. Some older missiles were apparently withdrawn from service.

The U.S. numbers in March 2016 were 1481 warheads, 741 deployed and 878 total launchers (1538, 762, and 898 in September 2015).

Russia deployed 153 strategic nuclear warheads over the past year under the New START arms treaty while the U.S. military pared its nuclear forces by 57 warheads, according to State Department figures released last week.

The increase in warheads by Moscow appears to be part of Moscow’s large-scale strategic nuclear forces buildup.

Defense officials disclosed last week that Russia is doubling the number of strategic nuclear warheads and remains over the 1,550 warhead limit set by the 2010 New START arms treaty.

The Russian increases are due to the deployment of new, multiple-warhead SS-27 Mod 2 road-mobile missiles and SS-N-32 submarine-launched ballistic missiles, officials said.

Russia’s Defense Ministry announced last month that its nuclear forces will add 20 new SS-27 Mod 2 missiles, known as Yars, this year. New SS-N-32s, called Bulava by Russia, also are being fielded. Both missiles can be equipped with up to 10 warheads each. The SS-N-32s are deployed on new Borei-class missile submarines.

The treaty requires the United States and Russia to reduce their arsenal of deployed strategic warheads to 1,550 by February 2018.

The warhead numbers include weapons used on land-based intercontinental missiles, submarine-launches missiles and on bombers.

Additionally, the latest data released by the State Department on Friday shows the Russians added six new missiles over the past year, while reducing its launchers by 34 nuclear missile launchers or bombers.

For the United States, 20 missile launchers or bombers were eliminated over the past year under the treaty, along with eliminating 44 systems, either intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), sub-launched missiles, or nuclear-capable bombers.

The large Russian warhead buildup, combined with official statements from Moscow questioning the utility of continued adherence to the treaty, are raising concerns about a break-out from the treaty limits.

Mark Schneider, a former Pentagon nuclear forces policymaker, said the increase by Russia in deployed warheads is greater than analysts expected and signals Moscow is set to violate New START in the coming months.

“Russia is now at 198 more deployed warheads than at entry into force [of the New START treaty],” Schneider said.

The treaty went into effect in February 2011. Since then, Russia gradually has built up its warhead totals. The warhead numbers increased sharply over the past year, reflecting multiple-warhead missile deployments.

“I believe the odds are that Russia will terminate the treaty in 2017,” Schneider said. “That would pocket all the U.S. reductions, give them more weapons, and it might be seen by [Russian leader Vladimir] Putin as revenge for the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty [withdrawal].”

The United States withdrew from the ABM treaty in 2002 and began building missile defenses, a move that Russia has interpreted as a threat.

Additionally, Russia will be emboldened to pull out of the New START treaty by the failure of the United States to address Russia’s violation of the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty, Schneider said. The treaty bans the construction of intermediate-range ballistic and cruise missiles. Russia breached the accord with a new SS-N-8 cruise missile, U.S. officials have said.

“Whether or not the Russians pull the plug on New START, the number of Russian warheads will be much larger than 1,550,” Schneider said, noting state-run Russian press reports put Moscow’s long-term warhead level at 2,100, while a U.S. think tank estimates the Russians will deploy around 2,500 warheads by 2025.

Schneider, now with the National Institute for Public Policy, also said the estimates of Russian warheads do not include announced plans by Moscow to build at least 50 new Tu-160 nuclear bombers. “That will push the number to over 3,000 when this program is completed,” he said.

At the same time the United States has continued to cut its force levels, he noted.

Asked about the Russian warhead increase, Blake Narendra, a spokesman for the State Department’s bureau of arms control, verification, and compliance, said both the United States and Russia continue to fully implement the New START treaty “in a business-like manner.”

Narendra said under the treaty there are no interim limits on warheads so Russia has months to comply with the 1,550 warhead limit.

Russian modernization of its nuclear forces will produce “fluctuations” in the number of deployed warheads as well as delivery systems, he said of the warhead increases.

As for multiple warheads being added to new Russian missiles, Narendra said, “the United States itself maintains an upload capability on its Minuteman III ICBMs.”

The State Department expects Russia to meet the New START central limits by 2018, he said.

In addition to new nuclear forces, Russia has also adopted a new doctrine that emphasizes the use of nuclear forces in a conflict.

The combination of new forces and the threatening nuclear doctrine has prompted U.S. military leaders to warn about the growing threat posed by Russia.

Gen. Philip Breedlove, commander of the U.S. European Command and of NATO, said in February that Russia has “chosen to be an adversary and poses a long-term existential threat” to the United States and its allies.

“To counter Russia, Eucom, working with allies and partners, is deterring Russia now and preparing to fight and win if necessary,” Breedlove told Congress.

A report by the National Institute for Public Policy concludes that Russia is building up its nuclear forces to instill fear of Moscow.

“Russian leaders appear to view nuclear weapons as the ultimate way to make the world ‘fear,’ or at least respect Russia, and provide a political lever to intimidate, coerce, and deter Western states from attempting to interfere militarily against Russian expansionism,” states the report, co-written by Schneider and Mark Payne, another former Pentagon nuclear forces expert.

In addition to the new SS-27s and SS-N-32s, Moscow is building a new heavy ICBM called Sarmat that will have up to 15 warheads; another long-range missile called the RS-26 with MIRVs, and a railroad-launcher missile called Barguzin.

Moscow has also showcased a developmental drone submarine called Kanyon with a megaton-sized nuclear warhead capable of blowing up harbors and ports.

“Russia’s apparently low nuclear threshold raises the stakes in any conflict, and compels adversaries to confront the possibility they could become involved, so too would Russian nuclear weapons,” the report said.

“This has been prominently displayed throughout hostilities in Ukraine, as Russian nuclear exercises, official statements and bomber patrols are intended to intimidate western states.”

The report concludes: “Whether it be covering hybrid [warfare] operations, intimidating European states or potentially employing nuclear strikes to defeat a conventionally superior adversary, nuclear weapons and threat of their use are likely to remain, if not grow, in importance for Russia.”